I saw that article and that phrase at the start hit me too. What a pathetic thing to say. She sounds so bitter. Just can't let it go. Even without admitting she was wrong, she could exit with quiet dignity and let time heal it. But she keeps digging her hole deeper. Have you noticed how her crappy book is now being given the title "Angel Face" whenever it is referenced. They must be so embarrassed about the sub-title "the True Story of Student Killer Amanda Knox". There may be some libel issues in that too. I hope Knox goes after some of these people.
I have friends who are themselves journalists who have a regional profile, a couple have a national profile, and one has briefly had an international profile. Like Nadeau for some US news agencies, they are considered the stringer to-go-to if you need a quick story from my region. A good friend of mine is also a some-time journalist living in Chile, who is the go-to-person if a news agency locally here needs a quick sound-byte or a bit of copy from Chile.
Based on this, I think in the early-fog-of-war-what-the-heck-is-going-on-in-Perugia, Nadeau as a journalist realized she had a bit of a scoop. Like the other American ex-pats in Italy, who had the advantage of speaking Italian and could literally shape the narrative back in America, this was Nadeau's big chance. Geez Louise, CNN is calling!
The two decisions Nadeau faced as a journalist - early decisions that are hard to back away from - are these: is Knox innocent or guilty? Also, do I cover this tabloid-style, or investigative-style?
For CNN she covered it as an investigative journalist. Dec 2009 she told CNN, "The evidence against Knox at conviction is weak, this could very well be verturned at appeal." Yes, Nadeau said that to CNN the day after the 1st Instance conviction.
To the Daily Beast.... "Foxy Knoxy doesn't know how to dress in a courtroom and keeps winking at her boy-toy...."
The advantage of going tabloid, is that you are banking on the short-haul - if this is going to be a flash in the pan, let's make the flash as bright as possible. Early on, Nadeau could well have thought - "Geez, this is not going to be a story in 2008. If it goes into 2009 I'll be surprised. Let's go for some sizzle."
So let's go for the "Knox knows something she's not telling us," angle. That way you can dance between saying you've either always believed she was guilty, or that you always believed she was innocent as need be, depending on whether it was CNN or The Daily Beat you were reporting for.
The important thing is to get "Student Killer" in the title of your book - maybe that title will re-ignite the flash.....
Yet on 3 Oct 2011, the air goes out of Nadeau's initial journalistic instincts. No, this is not a flash in the pan, and this is not really a tabloid story of sex, drugs, and lesbian-rape.... this is a story of a completely corrupt prosecution, which when you take one look at Mignini, is not really that sexy at all.
It's like the yawns you hear as a journalist when you report that the Mignini's minions only quote is, "I was only following orders." Geez, do they STILL claim that? Can we get a picture of one of those female cops in those high boots again! Isn't it sexy the way they let their hair flow down over their anti-contamination suits!
Nadeau can be forgiven the fog-of-war early on. I mean, even Frank Sfarzo and Candace Dempsey early on were able to believe such an unlikely story, when seen with 20-20 hindsight. "Stranger things have happened," could be an early rationale.
That Frank and Candace went one way, and Nadeau continues into 2012 with Knox appealing a criminal conviction only because, "Knox just loves the limelight," is about as scuzzy as one can get.
And it reveals the real tragedy of Nadeau's approach to journalism.
She hasn't learned anything.
